Moscow mules are my goto. Only vodka made in the USA, though. Fuck Putin!
The only thing is, I had to stop drinking.. so I'll have to live vicariously through y'all
Political Theater
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
Moscow mules are my goto. Only vodka made in the USA, though. Fuck Putin!
The only thing is, I had to stop drinking.. so I'll have to live vicariously through y'all
I'm leaving that freak on iggy. Fuck 'im.
Dos Equis with lime and salt on the rim of the glass. Reminds me of sitting at an oceanside bar in Puerto Vallarta.
I don't drink anymore though.
Folsom Naval Reservist is Sentenced After Pleading Guilty to Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Materials
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. (Comey)
One relevant military case, United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home. While he was charged under Section 793, it was not under subsection (f) – the subsection of the statute most relevant to Mrs. Clinton, involving the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information – but under subsection (e), which criminalizes willful mishandling of classified information. Nevertheless, the case is highly relevant to our consideration of Director Comey’s recommendation against prosecution.
The defendant in McGuinness claimed that he merely intended to keep the classified items as personal reference materials, not to improperly disseminate them. Thus, he contended that willfulness, the mens rea (state of mind) proof requirement in Section 793(e), was legally insufficient. It was not enough, he insisted, for the prosecution to prove he had knowingly violated a legal duty regarding the safekeeping of classified information; the government needed in addition to prove bad faith – meaning: that he intended to do harm.
Obviously, this is very similar to Director Comey’s theory that, in a Section 793(f) case, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove mere “gross negligence,” even though that’s what subsection (f) says. The director claims the statute should be read to require additional proof of an intent to cause harm.
In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.)
Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses.
Clearly, Director Comey’s argument is analogous to the one the McGuinness Court rejects – i.e., that Congress mustn’t have meant what it said when it criminalized mere “gross negligence.” In positing his theory, Comey did not refer to this sliding statutory scale in which Section 793(f) is at the bottom. What McGuinness makes clear, though, is that Congress conceived a scale involving grades of misconduct and precisely meant to criminalize gross negligence at the bottom of it. If the mishandling of classified information involves more serious criminal intent, prosecutors should simply charge a more serious offense. Pace Director Comey, it is not as if all the different offenses in the series merge into one, with the least serious one requiring the most serious mental state.
The military prosecutions under Section 793(f) illustrate that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for this offense would not be to single her out. Perhaps more significantly, the offenses for which comparatively low level military personnel have been prosecuted pale in seriousness compared to the offense of the former Secretary of State.
Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ce-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out/
The defendant in McGuinness claimed that he merely intended to keep the classified items as personal reference materials, not to improperly disseminate them. Thus, he contended that willfulness, the mens rea (state of mind) proof requirement in Section 793(e), was legally insufficient. It was not enough, he insisted, for the prosecution to prove he had knowingly violated a legal duty regarding the safekeeping of classified information; the government needed in addition to prove bad faith – meaning: that he intended to do harm.
Obviously, this is very similar to Director Comey’s theory that, in a Section 793(f) case, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove mere “gross negligence,” even though that’s what subsection (f) says. The director claims the statute should be read to require additional proof of an intent to cause harm.
In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.)
Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses.
Clearly, Director Comey’s argument is analogous to the one the McGuinness Court rejects – i.e., that Congress mustn’t have meant what it said when it criminalized mere “gross negligence.” In positing his theory, Comey did not refer to this sliding statutory scale in which Section 793(f) is at the bottom. What McGuinness makes clear, though, is that Congress conceived a scale involving grades of misconduct and precisely meant to criminalize gross negligence at the bottom of it. If the mishandling of classified information involves more serious criminal intent, prosecutors should simply charge a more serious offense. Pace Director Comey, it is not as if all the different offenses in the series merge into one, with the least serious one requiring the most serious mental state.
The military prosecutions under Section 793(f) illustrate that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for this offense would not be to single her out. Perhaps more significantly, the offenses for which comparatively low level military personnel have been prosecuted pale in seriousness compared to the offense of the former Secretary of State.
Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ce-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out/
You are both laughable redneck retard, loser clowns.
I bet neither of you can even type the shit you post with a straight face.
Trump committed the highest level of crimes and treason against this country than any elected official in history.
Now the nation and the world are seeing it laid out before them plain as day.
And it's lying garbage like YOU TWO who are choking on it.
You're an insanely laughable immature libturd.
Yeah, I'd much rather be a redneck than a fucking retard like you.
Kill yourself and increase the IQ of the human race. Fucking faggot.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
I know all about those cases and they all involved the physical removal of documents from government buildings and military installations for no legitimate reason, by US service personal who, unlike civilian officials, operate under the UCMJ.
None of it equates to the legitimate, electronic communication involving their official duties that Clinton, Powell, Rice et al, engaged in.
And of course, Trump's constant use of his personal, unauthorized cell phone to gab and tweet about God only knows what, doesn't count for anything with you, does it?
Of course not.
Saying you have a double standard would be a gross understatement.
You have more sets of standards than can be counted.
A different set for everything and everyone.
.
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Cancun Raffy is a disgrace.
Cornhole Cornyn is a disgrace.
Ironside Abbott is a disgrace.
Texas is a disgrace.
I wish it were a disgrace as an independent nation rather than as part of America.
Cornhole Cornyn is a disgrace.
Ironside Abbott is a disgrace.
Texas is a disgrace.
I wish it were a disgrace as an independent nation rather than as part of America.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sorry, Phan, but Hillary knows she was in the wrong and lied about it. She knew the rules on classified material and felt she was above the rules. IMO, she was also very paranoid about leaving document trails. Her history explains why. LOL
Why hammer everyone from Petraeus to Manning for violating classified material protocols then give Hillary a pass? Because it was an election year? Or because Hillary literally owned the DNC? LOL
BTW, fuck the Republicans. They'd killed off the future of the GOP in 2012 by running from their own Growth & Opportunity Project. Trump killed off the past of the GOP. The legacy of Republicans will forever be tainted by Trump and his traitors.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
QED. Everyone who screws up classified material protocols is hammered for it except for Hillary. Why the difference?
Hillary should have been censured at a minimum, but since it was an election year, she got a pass.
From the reference: "U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance."
More good references:
Don't forget about all the plugged WH johns.. I'll bet the WH septic tank is a treasure trove of documents incriminating twump.
Who wants to go get it?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Worldwide inflation is not Biden's fault.
"It’s not just the United States that is suffering from high inflation, countries worldwide are experiencing higher than average inflation. This is partially due to the global pandemic but even more the result of the actions taken by central banks in response to the pandemic. In this article, we will look at global inflation rates by country and inflation around the world.
The World Inflation Rate
The average inflation rate around the world is 7.4%. The global inflation rate surged from 4.35% in 2021, and 3.18% in 2020."
https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/05/21/worldwide-inflation-by-country-2022/
Sorry Dutch, you’re wrong.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Groan me all you like, Phan, but results count. Everyone who violates classified material protocols is hammered even if it's only a slap on the wrist. Not Hillary. She got a pass because it was an election year in a tight election...even one against a fucking moron and pedophile.
You continue to be wrong, Dutch.Groan me all you like, Phan, but results count. Everyone who violates classified material protocols is hammered even if it's only a slap on the wrist. Not Hillary. She got a pass because it was an election year in a tight election...even one against a fucking moron and pedophile.
we are higher then Italy FFS and France and Germany.
Consider Trump handed off low inflation to Biden -Biden then got 2.1 T more spending.
you cant throw in criticism of Republicans as well that voted for that fiasco
It could have been much worse if Biden's BBB was passed -thank great Buddha for that at least
Hillary also stored a thumb drive in her atty's office safe
She had an unsecured server, she used a Blackerry (unsecued) in a secure location (Mahogany Row)
She didnt even have a State Dept Email addy
She used a political appointee as her tech guy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rver-unknown-to-bosses-at-state-idUSKCN0WR00X
BidenPresident
Verified User
Hillary. Not Trump's violent coup.^^^
Into the Night
Verified User
The United States was never a democracy. It was organized as a federated republic.
There was no insurrection on Jan 6th.
The silent coup was conducted by Democrats. So far it's successful. How long it will last is yet to be seen.